Interview with Denis Lamoureux

About a month ago, I finished reading Denis Lamoureux’s book Evolutionary Creation. Since  I had met Denis at the ASA/CiS meeting in Scotland in 2007 and have corresponded with him a couple of times, I decided to ask if he would agree to let me interview him for my blog. I was excited and honored when his answer came back “Yes”.

Here’s how the interview was conducted: I wrote all my questions in advance and sent them together by email. After receiving the answers, I did a little editing and checked the changes with Denis. I added the question titles last. For a couple of reasons, I decided not to include two of my original questions in this post. They explored a couple of “my” issues that I am still struggling to articulate as a question. Unlike the rest of the interview, these questions generated some back-and-forth discussion, and I think it best if I publish that exchange in a subsequent post.

Here then is the main interview. Please feel free to submit specific comments and follow-up questions. Denis made no promises about responding to individual comments. He may consider answering two or three specific questions that I select and send as a group after a few days.

Question 1: Pronunciation of Lamoureux

What is the correct pronunciation of your last name? (People who have only seen it in print seem to stumble over it in conversation; you might as well help us learn to use it correctly!).

Yes, not an easy name. It’s French and pronounced in English as: Lam—er—oo (like kangaroo).

Question 2: Reactions to the Book

It’s been about a year since the publication of Evolutionary Creation, and you’ve traveled to speak at several different Christian colleges and universities recently. What has the general response been? Any surprises?

Overall, the response has been quite positive. There haven’t been any real surprises because I’ve seen the same reactions for years now. The people that invite me to speak are usually biologists who are evolutionists. When I introduce them to the actual category/term of evolutionary creation (EC), they often come up to me and say that they’ve held this view of origins in a hazy way but haven’t been able to fully articulate it. All I do is give them a category, and it tightens their ownership of their position.

However, those who have not seen the evolutionary evidence (e.g., engineers, philosophers, etc.) and have not been impacted by it are somewhat troubled by my views. Especially, the issue of human origins is very difficult. My rejection of the historical Adam is not easy for them. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a matter of them being exposed to the scientific evidence. They’ll get it, if they see it.

Question 3: The New Book

You have a new book out called I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution (ILJ&IAE). Why did you write this new book so soon after Evolutionary Creation? Is it intended for a different audience? Although it is shorter overall, does the new book add to or further develop any ideas from the first book?

The new book is 168 pages from the 500 pages of Evolutionary Creation. It’s for a popular audience. Evolutionary Creation was more theological (in particular, emphasizing hermeneutics, i.e., biblical interpretation) with science stuffed in the appendices. ILJ&IAE has more science and it’s placed in the chapters.

Question 4: EC vs. TE?  ID vs. IDM?

You make a strong case for adopting the term evolutionary creation (EC) instead of theistic evolution (TE) to describe the best alternative to young-earth creation (YEC), old-earth creation (OEC) and other categories of Christian views about origins science. Yet, you preserve the term “intelligent design”, which you redefine rather than replace and which you must take pains to distinguish from the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. Why attempt to redeem the latter term, which in popular culture is understood to mean something much more specific (i.e., something that couldn’t have happened through natural, God-given processes) and contrary to your evolutionary creationist view?

Great comment. The ID Movement (IDM) is only 15 years old, and they are the ones who have co-opted the term “Intelligent Design” and redefined it. Regrettably, they have conflated the term with Divine interventions. This is not the traditional and biblical understanding of ID, and I reject the IDM use of the term. Here is what I wrote about this issue in ILJ&IAE (pp. 8-9):

It is important to distinguish the biblical and traditional understanding of intelligent design from the view of design being promoted today by the Intelligent Design Movement (or Intelligent Design Theory). The latter is a narrow view of design and claims that design is connected to miraculous interventions in the origin of life. For example, parts of the cell like the flagellum are said to be “irreducibly complex,” and as a result, they could not have evolved through natural processes. Since this is the case, ID Theory should be termed Interventionistic Design Theory. In contrast, I will focus on the scriptural and Christian view of intelligent design, which simply states that the creation impacts everyone, declaring God’s glory and revealing His eternal power and divine nature.

Bottom line: I reject the IDM’s moving away for the classic definition of the term “intelligent design.”

Question 5: Message-Incident Principle

The central motif in your book is what you call the Message-Incident Principle. While the underlying concept of Accommodation has been discussed by many bible scholars, the specific term “Message-Incident Principle” was new to me. Did you coin this term? How did that come about and how did it develop as an important theme for the book?

Yes, I coined it. But as you correctly note, the concept is very old. I was first introduced to it in G.E. Ladd’s New Testament and Criticism (p. 12): “The Bible is the Word of God given in the words of men in history.” Now, my turning it into a principle is a function of teaching science-religion courses for over 10 years. I found that my categorization helps students develop their hermeneutics on how to read passages in Scripture that refer to the natural world. In other words, my MIP is for a very narrow part of hermeneutics.

Question 6: Historicity of Genesis 1-11

Among the many scientist Christians who accept and write about evolution, you are one of the first to directly state that the events of Genesis 1-11 have little or no correspondence to actual history. Why do you suppose that is? In your opinion, are any of the EC views that preserve a historical Adam plausible scientifically or compelling theologically?

I think you’re right. Peter Enns made a similar comment. I suspect it’s because I’m a theologian with a focus on hermeneutics. Most scientists have not done graduate work in this theological discipline. My masters was on Genesis 1-11 (thesis on Gen 6:1-4), and I did a minor on Genesis 1-11 in my doctorate.
Rejecting scientific concordism is not easy at first because it is sooo counterintuitive. However, this is where my day-to-day reading of statements about nature in Scripture led me—the Bible has an ancient science in it.

EC by definition rejects a historical Adam, because this view of origins rejects scientific concordism.

Attaching an Adam at the tail of evolution is like pinning on a firmament and heavenly sea at the end of the Big Bang. I doubt any physicist would do that, so too no biologist. It’s the mixing of ancient science with modern science, and that’s categorically inappropriate.

Adding an Adam at the end would make one a Progressive Creationist that is nearly an Evolutionary Creationist.

Question 7: Historicity of Genesis 12-50

Because your book is about creation theology, you discuss the historicity of Genesis 1-11. What about the historicity of the remainder of Genesis and the Pentateuch? To what extent do you think that Abraham and his story are historical or must be historical for the sake of Christianity? What do you think is the range of “reasonable” possibilities on this issue?

Now, this is outside my area of expertise. So, speaking as an amateur, I see history starting ROUGHLY (i.e., phasing in) with the Abraham cycle. You’ll have to ask specialists in this area—and there’s much debate here. But there is something I’m certain of: Gen 19 has Moab and Ammon (enemies of the Hebrews) descending through Lot and his two daughters. Clearly, this is the Tribal Formation Motif for the origin of a people, and thus an ancient understanding of history. It’s also overlaid with political polemic against these two enemies of Israel—the daughter’s sleep with their drunk father. It’s like Ham seeing Noah’s nakedness—all the descendants of Ham in Gen 10 are the enemies of the Hebrews.

Question 8: Authority of Scripture

If Genesis represents ancient history-telling using popular motifs of the day, including tribal formation (which all cultures used to establish their identities), what about Scripture distinguishes it as the inspired Word of God? In short, why should we trust this story any more than other ancient stories? And what implications does this have for Christian apologetics?

You’re correct. The theology in the Bible might just be ancient theology. However, I find that it is a living Message in Scripture and it changes lives. I have read the other creation accounts (e.g., Enuma Elish), and their theology has no impact on me (or the rest of the world, as testified by history). For apologetics, it means evangelicals will have to stop using anti-evolutionary arguments in defending the faith (as I did 30 years ago).

Question 9: Confidence

At the end of the day, which aspects of your case in Evolutionary Creation are you very certain of, and what aspects are you most tentative about?

I was pretty certain when I published the book, otherwise I wouldn’t have published it. Now this is not to say I’m absolutely right. It’s to say, given what I’ve got, this is the best I came up with in 2008. I have had 14 years to think about it. And now with some of the criticisms that are being launched against my work, I’m becoming more certain, simply because the criticisms are misrepresentations of my views and argue against things I don’t believe.

Question 10: Overlooked Views

In your testimony (chapter 9 in Evolutionary Creation), you refer to J.I. Packer and other respected evangelicals at Regent College who didn’t hold to biblical literalism or strict historicity of Genesis 1-11. Why do you suppose their views on this point have not had much impact on popular evangelical views along with their writings in general?

Evangelicalism is a very anti-intellectual tradition. And if you disagree, check out former Wheaton professor Mark Noll’s book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994). First sentence: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there’s not much of an evangelical mind.” That’s why academically inclined people love Regent College. Pastors won’t go where I’m going with this issue because they’ll lose their jobs; so too will Christian college professors.

Question 11: TE Timidness

You lament the timidness of theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists in proclaiming creation and the Creator (p.372 in Evolutionary Creation). Why do you think these people have been so quiet? Do you see this beginning to change? How would you suggest that these people (we) work together to have a greater impact?

They could get fired from their Christian college, or tossed out of their church. (Easy for me to say, because I’m at a public university.) It’s slowly changing. But it’s going to take a generation.

Question 12: Suggested Reading

When you teach introductory courses on science and religion (specifically creation-evolution) issues at St. Joseph’s College, what texts, books or articles do you have the students read and discuss?

They have a set of notes for my next book: An Introduction to Science & Religion. Here’s the reading list: Lamoureux Reading List.

Question 13: Favorite Authors

What writers (theologians and/or scientists) do you personally admire most and find most helpful and inspirational with regard to creation-evolution or general theology-science issues?

Gordon Wenham has written the best commentary on Genesis 1-11, and Francis Collins and his BioLogos Foundation is leading the way from the science side. The “leading figures” on his website are all quite good, with one being debatable .

Question 14: Teaching Children

Given that proper biblical interpretation requires what you admit to be “counterintuitive” methods of reading the text, how would you suggest that we teach children (grades 1-8) the Bible in Sunday school and science in Christian school? (I realize that you probably don’t claim any special expertise in childhood education, but this is a concern of mine, and I am interested in your thoughts).

A question well out of my field. The developmental education folks will have to answer that. Best I can say, with a little humor, is: The ark should float in Grade 1, and by the time students leave Grade 12 to meet me at university, someone has to have sunk the ark for them!